Talk:Berlin

• /Archive 1 (November 2001 to January 2006)

This needs a LOT of work

Compared to the articles about most major cities this is really disappointing at present. It needs a history section. It needs an overview of the structure of the city. And most of the other sections need to be made less like lists. Readers don't need this page to find the specific articles about things in Berlin as they can use category:Berlin for that. A lot of the links are red, and most of them should probably go. What matters is to explain to us what is essential about the city, to put things into context, and generally make it readable prose, rather than lists. Merchbow 06:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, probably it will be best to have a look at the German language article and transfer some of it's content. I'll have a look at it as soon as I find the time.. --Johnnyw 11:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have some time and will do as you suggest. Marco polo 17:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Great! Thanks a lot. I already took care of the introduction. But the huge bulk of the article still remains... --Johnnyw 17:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

News: German Wiki Notice Board

Since it is much needed, I created the Wikipedia:German_Wikipedians'_notice_board. I am not a German, and (so) it needs people of the German wikipedian community to bring it up to scratch. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 02:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Opening photo

I am about the replace the photo that appears near the opening of the article. The photo now in place is an aerial view of Berlin, probably looking west from the Fernsehturm. At the thumbnail size at which it appears on the page, it is hard to see anything in the photo, which is not very engaging graphically. Even when the photo is enlarged to full size, it does not, to my eye, convey the look or feel of the city. To me, it makes Berlin look ordinary and drab, which it really isn't.

I am planning to replace this photo with one of the Brandenburg Gate. It is admittedly a bit cliché, but the article would benefit from a visually engaging opening, and the Gate is photogenic. It is also one of the most recognized landmarks of the city. And this is an encyclopedia article. It is expected for an encyclopedia article to present the most characteristic symbols of a place to newcomers, even if they are cliché to the iniates. The alternative would be the Siegessäule, but the symbolism of a gate is a good fit for the opening of the article. Marco polo 15:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The Brandenburg Gate (maybe with a bit of the Pariser Platz visible) will do nicely as an introduction. --Johnnyw 16:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I chose the nighttime shot because the black and gold colors of the photograph harmonize nicely with the red, black, and gold of the infobox on the other side of the page. In terms of colors, a big piece of blue sky would look awkward there, to my eye. But if someone doesn't like it they will change it.

By the way, there are vandals coming through periodically deleting the photo. One of them added a reference to Star Trek to the article intro. I reverted. Marco polo 21:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone came through and deleted the photo again. I am sensing that a fair number of people don't want a photo in that position, so I will not restore it. However, I would like to have an opening photo somewhere. What if the photo sat in the right column above the infobox, as it does for Paris? Comments? Marco polo 15:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be nice. It seems that the problem lies with the display resolution of some users. If the photo remains where it was, the article text gets squashed between the image and the infobox. Moving it to the right would solve that problem. --Johnnyw 15:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I put the photo at the upper right corner of the page, but only by creating a new paragraph break and inserting the code for the infobox between paragraphs. Just adding the tag for the photo above the infobox caused the infobox to shift to the left of the photo, creating an extremely thin column of text on the left side of the page. That looked awful, so I came up with my awkward solution. It would be nice if someone could find a more elegant way to do the coding. I don't have a background in HTML and can't do that on my own. Marco polo 21:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This morning when I opened the page, the infobox and all of the photos were displaying error messages. I don't know if somehow the last change caused this problem. It is hard to understand, because when I looked at the final version in the history, everything was displaying okay. However, on my screen, Johnnyw's last edit created a single line of text running to the right edge of the page between the opening photo and the infobox. This looked terrible. So I reverted to the previous version, which also solved the display problem. If there is a way to make the coding simpler while putting the opening photo directly above the infobox (without any text running in between them and without other display problems), that would be nice. But for now, the existing arrangement seems to work. Marco polo 15:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the errors were unrelated to my changes, but the changes obviously did not solve the problem on every system. If I group everything in a table, there seems to be a problem with the index, with the introduction colliding massively. I'll have another go on it as soon as I find the time to spare. Best wishes Marco, keep up the good job. --Johnnyw 17:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't know what I did wrong in my tests. Now it works perfectly. I put the image and the infobox in a new floating-table.--Johnnyw 17:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Johnny! Hopefully everybody will be happy with this. Marco polo 23:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I had to take a couple weeks off and came back to find that someone had deleted the photo from the top of the article without saying why. I restored it. Please, if you don't think it belongs there, have the courtesy to say why. Thanks. Marco polo 16:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The table is way to wide! It s sad cause you cant really read whats on the side and the graphic improvement witht the new pic is undermined; if someone knows how to move - lets say - the map and coat of arms on top of each other that would help

illustration

The illustration of this article really sucks. --84.63.8.209 03:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Image loading problem?

Anyone else having trouble getting the image located in the "Berlin's boroughs and localities" section to display correctly? However, when I go to the link for the full size image, it loads fine. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed the image size and that seemed to fix it for me. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Better pictures needed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(The above heading was added by User:84.189.97.13 at 14:23, 11 April 2006)

You're welcome to go commons:Category:Berlin and find some. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please vote for Berlin: Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week and be part of Berlin improvement Sashandre all the best for you

Pictures of streetlife, clubs, parades ,galleries,diversity needed  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sashandre all the best for you

What does this article need?

Im from the Good Article collaboration, and I just wanted to ask, what does this article need really? There seems to be a bunch of talk about images, is that possibly the main area to work on, or are there still problems like the person at the top of the page is talking about with a history section or whatever? Homestarmy 00:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

To Do List

We do need an extension or a fully new written introduction on the following topics: The capital;Economic trends;Media;Sports;Tourism,Conventions,Trade Shows;Education;Theatres,OperaHouses,Music(also Danceshould be mentioned).Some missing links in the lists have to be created. By now the layout should be fine, we do need though pictures of Festivals,cafe,shopping,streetlife,clubs,people and a satellite image (Landsat).

any further suggestions ? you are welcome!

Sashandre all the best for you

there seems to be a very small list of references for such a large article, do they really cover all the information in the article? Homestarmy 13:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well we seem to have all the list things paragraphified, and there seem to be plenty of pictures. Homestarmy 12:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

So the collaboration ends tommorow...

Does anyone here want this up for a peer review or something? Homestarmy 15:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, did we make it to Good Article Collaboration of the Week? I totally missed that... sorry... I would have contributed if I had noticed! Angr (talk • contribs) 16:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I forgot that my time is like 6 hours off from Wikipedia time, so the collaboration is offically over. How does anyone here feel about maybe nominating this for FA status, or are there some things that we should work on that might warrent a peer review instead? Homestarmy 00:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I still have some issues with the article, one of which is mentioned in the topic immediately below. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sentence in lead

I'm bothered by this sentence: "The city serves as an important crossroads for the eastern EU members and is a main junction of national and international transportation." First of all, what does "crossroads for the eastern EU members" mean? And as for being a main junction of national and international transportation, Berlin famously isn't one. Until recently, you couldn't fly anywhere out of Europe from Berlin, and there are still very few flights from Berlin to North America and Asia, and AFAIK none at all to Africa, Australia, or South America. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope the intro is more specific now. Sashandre all the best for you

Spellings

At the moment the article has a mixture of British and American spellings. Since the topic is not specific to any English-speaking country, the Manual of Style suggests we follow that of the original editor. The oldest version of this page uses color and center, so I suggest regularizing American spellings throughout the article. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Go for the American spelling, we need harmonized language Sashandre all the best for you

Reichstag picture

Hi Sashandre, I'm not sure I agree with your positioning the Reichstag picture after the WWII and Berlin Wall pictures. I suppose you're using it to illustrate Berlin's position as capital of post-1990 reunified Germany, but the Reichstag was built -- and dedicated Dem deutschen Volke -- after the 1871 unification, so I think it's a better illustration of Berlin's position as capital of the Deutsches Reich (it is the Reichstag after all), and so the picture should be in the "17th-19th century" section. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Angr, great correction work by the way! You are right with the dedication after 1871 but I´m very much in favor for the post-1990 position because of several reasons. a) Significance of dt.Reich is of minor relevance today b) half the appearance is the new glass dome which is contemporary c) For over 40 decades it was disabled but is now rather a symbol of rebuilt Berlin after Reunification. d) it fits to the context below (politics) Sashandre all the best for you

Well, okay, I guess you have a point. What this article still needs is inline references in Wikipedia:Footnotes style, though. There are some references listed at the bottom, but there's no indication of what facts were gotten from what sources. Since I'm not the one who added them, I can't do it myself, but someone really needs to. Angr (talk • contribs) 23:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

We could start with rudimentary footnotes, I don't know much about the MLA style myself, but certainly a section could be started somewhat anyway. Homestarmy 01:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you or someone else can at least get the sources lined up with the facts they're sourcing (using the <ref> and </ref> tags explained at WP:FN), that would be a great start. I can fix the style later. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

World Cup Logo

The World Cup together with the Olympics is the pre-eminent sportsevent with global significance. Since Berlin is the center arena and the host of the final ,I think it is absolutely appropiate even necessary to show the Logo. Sashandre

Please read Fair use for when we are allowed to use copyrighted images in articles. Basically, we can only use them in articles about the person or object they illustrate. So the World Cup logo is fair use in the article about the 2006 World Cup, but not in an article about Berlin. In this article, using that logo amounts to a copyright violation. Angr (talk • contribs) 12:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be correct, we have to leave it ... Sashandre

But this article mentions things about the world cup in berlin....right? Homestarmy 14:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the article is not about the World Cup. Therefore the logo does not illustrate the subject of the article. Therefore using the World Cup logo is not permissible under fair use. Another thing to keep in mind is that it isn't even true that Berlin is hosting the World Cup. Germany is hosting the World Cup. Some of the games, including the final, are being played in Berlin, but most of the games are being played in other cities. The relevance of the World Cup logo to an article on Berlin is extremely tenuous. Angr (talk • contribs) 14:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

But that part of the article is about the World Cup, right? Or did somebody just place it in there randomly for no reason? Homestarmy 17:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that part of the article is about the World Cup, but that's not good enough to claim fair use of the image in this article. We have a link to the article about the World Cup, and the logo is in that article. The logo is not essential to understanding the section, it was just there for decoration, and that is not fair use of a copyrighted image. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Treptower park is missing

Why has the author missed Treptower Park? If he or she thinks that soviet soldiers do not deserve any respect, at list he or she should have recognised their existance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freenation (talk • contribs) 22:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

By all means, be bold and add it in if you can, preferably with a source so we don't have to do it later :). Homestarmy 02:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Homestarmy. Remember that this is a wiki, which means (1) there is not one single author of this article, and (2) you can add to this article to cover whatever you think is lacking. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I've now added a sentence about Treptower Park to the section "Zoos, botanical gardens, parks". Feel free to expand, although large-scale expansion should go to the article Treptower Park, not here. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because Soviet War memorial at Treptower Park is not listed anywhere in the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freenation (talk • contribs) 22:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, that one omission isn't enough to kick the article off the "Good articles" list. The lack of references throughout the article, on the other hand, is. I also wouldn't like to see it restored as a Good article until the education section is expanded, as mentioned below. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The criteria is to be broad, not perfectly broad, and calls for references, not perfect ones :/. One little missing bit of whatever it is out of a whopping 72K or whatever article tends not to register to reviewers heh. But once there are more references, in my opinion, this article has an instant shot at FA. Homestarmy 19:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, once there are more references, the article has an instant shot at being restored to GA (where it never should have been without them in the first place). I don't think it's anywhere near FA status. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The missing monument is the most unsufficient argument I ever heard. Who lead the discussion on denomination and where is that publicised ? Sashandre

Good articles are very unbureaucratic; this is the discussion. Anyone can remove an article from the GA list. And anyone can add an article to the GA list. But frankly, I was just about to remove it from the GA list myself because of the lack of references and the extremely stubby "Schools" section, when I noticed that someone else had beaten me to it and removed it from the list for an entirely different reason. Angr (talk • contribs) 20:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the book references at the bottom look general enough to cite a pretty good chunk of this article, but then, I don't have much idea what's in them. A couple more wide-reaching references might be available on some of the sections, maybe the climate one or the sports one, but they might all be in german and I can't understand german :(. Homestarmy 22:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Schools section

The section on schools needs expansion. Education in Germany lists all sorts of things that vary from state to state in Germany; what is the state of affairs in Berlin? Also, the article currently says that secondary schooling lasts 6 years, but that can't be true across the board: again according to Education in Germany, Hauptschulen go to 9th grade, Realschulen to 10th grade, and Gymnasien to 12th or 13th grade. If they each start in 7th grade, then Hauptschule lasts 3 years, Realschule 4, and Gymnasium 6 or 7. Again, what is the situation in Berlin? Angr (talk • contribs) 19:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

From the length of this article already, i'd say expanding on it too much might be a bit of overkill, though since it is about a city, i'd say something more specific than education in all of Germany might be called for. Perhaps find a list of some schools, and put "Education in Germany" as a see also or something? Since we're on a specific topic, it doesn't seem to me like going into an explanation of all of Germany's education system should be necessary. Homestarmy 19:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The section already says "See also Education in Germany". The thing is, school curricula and requirements are determined at the state level in Germany, and Berlin isn't only a city, it's also a state. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well, is there an article on Education in the state of Berlin? Homestarmy 22:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If there were, I think the best title would be Education in Berlin. But I'm not talking about adding an article's worth of info to the section, just two or three more sentences. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Forests?

I would be in favor of renaming "Zoos, botanical gardens, parks" simply "Green spaces" and discussing Berlin's forests as well. Not many cities have as high a percentage of their land dedicated to forest as Berlin. It's true in both parts of the city, but a friend of mine who grew up in West Berlin said having so much forestland where you felt like you were completely out of the city was "what kept us sane" during the years that West Berlin was walled in and it was impossible to take a day trip outside the city limits. I'll see what I can do myself, but I don't have a lot of free time, so I'll need help if other people agree this would be a valuable addition to the article. I certainly think it's something that makes Berlin different from most other large cities in industrialized countries. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Green spaces" seems not specific to me, a sentence about the forest character of Berlin should be there. Either in "Setting" or "parks".Sashandre

Forests are quite different from parks (they're managed differently and used differently), which is why I went for the more general term "Green spaces". I'm not sure to what extent zoos would belong in the section "Green spaces" though, or if it's appropriate to have botantical gardens, parks, and forests under "Culture" at all. Maybe we should leave zoos in "Culture" (to my mind zoos are like more like outdoor museums than they are like parks), and move botanical gardens, parks, and forests to "Setting" (which should perhaps be re-named "Geography"). Angr (talk • contribs) 20:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

City bounderies of Berlin include big forest and lakeside areas, I think that should be mentioned in the Setting-section( or Geography, but that would be doubled). Parks and Botanical Gardens are purely cultivated through science ,design and political will, a clear case for me to be in culture.Sashandre

I also think it would be better to list all parks under "Green spaces", but I think the problem lies somewhere else. English speakers don´t use the "Begriff" "Kultur" in the same way as Germans do. Just to translate it to "Culture" doesn´t mean it sounds right to English ears.. Therefore "Green spaces" seems to me the best way to include forests and parks and the Berliner saying "ins jrüne"!IsarSteve

Images

Sashandre, I don't understand why you removed Image:BerlinEastSpree.jpg but left Image:Spreebad kl.jpg. Not only is the first a much better-quality photo (higher resolution, fewer distracting artifacts), it much better illustrates the Spree in relation to the city, showing as it does such Kennzeichen as the Oberbaumbrücke and the Molecule Men--only in the distant background, granted, but the second photo doesn't have anything distinctly Berlin in it. No one who knows Berlin could possibly mistake the first picture for Warsaw. (Neither could anyone who knows Warsaw, I'll warrant.) Angr (talk • contribs) 20:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Angr, I´d love to have a satellite-photo or at least an aerial view of Spree-Berlin-Characterstics but this here is just to foggy.I can hardly identify Oberbaum or Treptowers. It could be any central european city for non Berliners. The current picture has simply a combination of Spree / Recreational/ and former Industrial areas. By far not perfect but at least crisp and in focus. By the way, very contemporary as well...Sashandre all the best

Sashandre, I'm disappointed you felt the need to remove my image - I spent some time considering whether to add it or not, but I felt it worthwhile in the end... The whole article only contains images of "things", there's not a single image that shows a wide view of Berlin. Berlin is a large, flat city, with a huge range of things (residential, commercial, industrial, rail, waterways, roads), all of which were shown in that photo. I added it because I felt the article needed an 'overview' of the setting. And, while I'll admit it could be better in terms of clarity, I felt it sufficiently good for these purposes. I'd be interested in other opinions, but I'm minded to put it back. AlanFord 22:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi AlanFord, you are right! Berlin is flat and Berlin needs a satellite-photo or at least an aerial view. But we need one from the city centre and not from the outskirts. The photo quality (foggy) also can´t meet the high standard on this page, so it lacks on significance and on quality. Both together adds to no appropriate improvement. Sashandre all the best for you

Berlinale logo

I have requested Fair use review concerning the use of the Berlinale logo in this article. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I´m fine with that. I think it can stand it . see also BBC on London page! Sashandre

Insufficient agrument and monument

Well, the body of my parents' relative among the bodies of other 20,000 soldiers rests under that 'insufficient monument'. And every bloody year, I visit the city to pay the tribute to those whom, as I belive, I owe a lot. And the author of this article, since he or she writes about Berlin, must know everything, or at leats a lot about the city. Yet, the huge park, which is not a steet light, was not mentioned in the artice, as if it had never existed. Finally, the fact that such huge monument had not been mentioned in the artice, is called 'insufficient argument'. I wonder if the Holocaust Memorial or Museum of Indian Art was missing in the article, would the remark about its absence be 'insufficient argument' as well?

Once again, there is not one author of this article, and if you feel something is missing, it's best to add it yourself. That's what it means to be a wiki. The argument that the article can't be a Good article because it's missing a mention of Treptower Park and the monument is "insufficient" simply because it's so easily fixed. It would have taken much less time and effort for you to write a sentence or two about the park and add it to the article than it took you to delist the article from the Good Articles list and write a complaint here on the talk page about the oversight. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Degrading?

IsarSteve, what exactly is "degrading" about the photo of Klaus Wowereit you removed? He obviously didn't consider it degrading or he wouldn't have posed for it. I think a photograph of the openly gay mayor at a gay pride event standing beside a drag queen who has just been crowned Miss CSD illustrates Berlin's personality perfectly. Angr (talk • contribs) 23:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

1.I agree with Angr on the mayor picture, it is the only people picture anyway... I´m also about restoring the Kiez-Kastanienallee-picture, it illustrates the context and is one of most famous neighbourhoods as well. 2.I have to question the new nightlife paragraph. There is no need telling history or nonexisting clubs in this section. I´m about to delete it. Sashandre all the best for you

3. that´s exactly my point, just because somebody is Gay, he doesn´t have to be shown with a Drag Queen. Would Diepgen have be shown with ""Miss German "Tits & Bum" 1994""? No certainly not. Regarding nightlife, thats not my amendment. OK lets delete all specific mention of Clubs and just mention Nightclubs.. IsarSteve 23:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If Diepgen would have posed for such a photo it would be noteworthy. Apparently he hasn't though, otherwhise such a photo would exist. The fact that a famous personality chooses to take part in such an event and chooses to use it as an opportunity to advertise for (the city|his career|whatever) is interesting and worth mentioning. Anorak2 09:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Would Diepgen have posed for a photograph with "Miss German Tits & Bum 1994" in the first place? This isn't a candid shot where Wowereit happened to be in the same frame with the DQ, they are standing together for the explicit purpose of having their picture taken together. Angr (talk • contribs) 00:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Kastienallee image just goes to illustrate the East Berlin bias in this article. What is so famous about Kastanienallee??? Not much, I would have thought, Kreuzberg better illustrates "The Berlin situation". I still think the image of Wowi is very clicheed.. exactly what non Gays want to see.. Also at a first glance it does look like it´s his "Gattin" and she is the "Red Queen" LOL! IsarSteve 00:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, Sashandre what do you actually mean when you say "famous"? do you mean "berühmt" or do you mean "sehr bekannt" or just even "bekannt". I would suggest again, that Kastienallee is neither "berühmt" or "sehr bekannt" just plain old "bekannt" which I think, doesn´t merit an image. Now I´m off to bed, so no more for today IsarSteve 02:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Even not being gay one can reckognise that Wowereit´s attitude is a broader approach to represent the city´s state of mind.Time magazine called him #Glamour Guy#, the picture captures that. Prenzlauer Berg is the focus Stadtteil of german & international immigration in the last 15 years. It is widely regarded as home to the new arts of all kinds, especially Kastanienallee( also known as Castingallee). The picture illustrates the fact of having large Boroughs made of several Stadteile, as described in the text.Sashandre

What counts as "trendy" with tourists and self-styled "artists" changes over time. It used to be Kreuzberg, after 1990 it became Prenzlauer Berg for a while, and now it's probably Friedrichshain. It's OK to mention this fact, but between you and me these are the parts of the city to avoid, so they shouldn't be overemphasized that much. The real Berlin takes place elsewhere. Anorak2 09:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK if you think so, but an image of Schloss Charlottenburg would do the same thing, be more interesting and also illustrate a Berlin touri-attraction. The new Borough of Wilmersdorf-Charlottenburg has all the same qualities as Pankow, more so in fact, in that has seen an enormous intake of Russians since 1989, not to mention the use of Charlottengrad. IsarSteve 08:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the section on Subdivisions needs anything else than the map of the boroughs, which I've just moved to the right side and made larger. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Berlin is a multicentered, multi-lifestyled and multihistoric metropolis; the article should provide a broad view on that.There is no real Berlin. Emphasizing the map is fine for me, but having a Kiez picture is appropriate as well.It covers the typical Gründerzeit housing and is spread in all of the city. There is simply no other other high quality pic available which captures a situation like that.By the way ,Kreuzberg was rather home to counter-culture and not the arts.Sashandre

GDR> East Germany

I´d like to change the use of "GDR " in the article to "East Germany ", which I think is the term most commonly used (and understood) in the English speaking world, to denote The "Deutsche Demokratische Republik ". Therefore, before I do so, I´d like your comments. IsarSteve 01:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. The only people I ever hear call East Germany the "GDR" are Germans speaking English. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'd agree. What's more, I've seen people mistake the GDR for West Germany.[1] I think it's the "Democratic" bit that does it. ProhibitOnions 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that link you provided is just weird. They don't seem to be mistaking the GDR for West Germany, though. The sentence says "In 1985...in what was formerly East Berlin, at that time still in the German Democratic Republic" which is perfectly true. The confusing part is what follows: "but later part of the communist-controlled Soviet bloc." Perhaps "at that time" refers to the time of the Haymarket Riot (1886), in which case they've confused the GDR with the German Empire. Angr (t • c) 11:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK I will change the article this week, although it´s maybe better to wait a couple of days more to allow (more?) discussion. IsarSteve 11:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust memorial

Its not the entertaining issue, but I think we need a visual representation (Memorial) of the Third Reich. The site is by now one of the most visited in Berlin. It features a Documentation center (kind of museum). I´m going to put it back in Museum section, where it once was ...Sashandre

It isn't a museum, it doesn't belong in the Museums section. Since we already have a picture of the Reichstag, I'm replacing the inside view of the Reichstagkuppel in the "Famous sights" section with the Holocaust memorial picture. Angr (t • c) 16:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The glass dome itself is one of maybe 5 iconic landmarks of the city this cant be neglected. Sashandre

It isn't neglected, we already have a picture of the Reichstag higher up in the article, glass dome and all. Angr (t • c) 17:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The dome inside has singular value and is of iconic quality. The situation now in the #famous sights# -section is not satisfiying, showing 2 second-level sights related to WW2.The museum section is not perfect but what is on this page. If we can´t find a solution I suggest keeping the glass dome. Sashandre

World Cup

For the time being the World Cup is the most dominant event on Earth. A modern internet-encyclopedia can and should react on that, otherwise I could take a look in my Britannica and read about Nazis still in power... Afterwards it can be deleted again; thats contemporary Wikipedia. London is presenting the olympic logo !6 years! in advance .... Sashandre

I'm not saying we shouldn't mention the World Cup at all, just that we don't need a huge picture of a shoe with people climbing all over it at the expense of a picture of one of the most important cultural sites in Berlin. How about a compromise: The Philharmonie large and on the right, the shoe small and on the left. Angr (t • c) 17:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, I moved the shoe down to fill up the white space to the right of the table. That way it doesn't interfere with a larger right-side image of the Philharmonie. Angr (t • c) 17:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Most dominant event on earth is a slight exaggeration. Anorak2 08:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I cant see any layout improvement. Both pictures where there before. Philharmonie has to be small because section is small. Shoe has to be in old position because the table looks better. It is so obvious don´t you think? Sashandre

Maybe the table displays differently for you and for me. For me, the table displays flush left and has a huge white space to the right of it. By moving the shoe down, the white space is filled. And I'm hoping the section where the Philharmonie is won't be short for very long, because I intend to expand that section when I get some time. Angr (t • c) 18:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Sashandre, why did you remove the {{unsourcedsect}} tags from "Higher education, research" and "Economic trends"? Both sections need sources to back up their statistics. I also don't understand your removal of all West Berlin nightclubs. The only "nonexisting" nightclub in the section was the LaBelle; the others are still in operation. IsarSteve has already pointed out that this article exhibits a distinct East Berlin bias, and removing the West Berlin nightclubs just makes it even less NPOV. Calling it a "highly volatile section" is just laughable -- I only added that paragraph yesterday, and no one touched it until you deleted it. That's not "volatile". You also removed my request for expansion from the "Schools" section. That section is pitifully small now and contains nothing of interest at all; either it must be expanded or deleted altogether. The way it is now is simply a joke. Angr (t • c) 21:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the comment about Unter den Linden.. I really don´t mind if the Palace is mentioned or not..but as written .. 10, 20 or 30 years is in the future!! I do object to Grand Boulevard >heads west..this doesn´t sound good.. Avenue is the correct term for tree lined road.. also Roaring twenties doesn´t just apply to North America.. It´s the term used in the UK for the 1920´s.. are we writing this for English speakers or German speakers?? Golden Twenties doesn´t in my opinion, have a meaning for English speaking people..it just sounds >foreign< IsarSteve 21:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The economic figures seem about right, see http://www.statistik-berlin.de/framesets/berl.htm Anorak2 08:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

see degrading disc./ see 1920 Berlin/ see Roaring twenties/ Cant find {{unsourcedsect}} tags in 30 major cities around the globe/ There is no West-Berlin anymore, nor East-Berlin. Only high & low significance. The West has historically a low one.Volatile refers to sec. changing. If there is something to expand or to be referenced, do it. Remove Palace or I do it! Sashandre all the best for you

where has the Collaboration gone to now?? There were some things that you deleted , that I thought should have stayed, but as I wrote you, I thought it was good to see fresh ideas, and let them go. Now you must accept, that your work can also be altered by others.. The order to remove something I´ll ignore.. If you feel you must change something, then do it.. but so will I and others too! IsarSteve 22:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can't find {{unsourcedsect}} tags in 30 major cities, then either they already cite their sources, or their editors aren't working towards getting the articles up to Good Article status. Your opinion that the West has a historically low significance is both untrue and insulting. While the historic center of the city is in the former East, the West gained significance during the years of division while the East stagnated. Since reunification, the East has come a long way towards regaining its significance, but it hasn't eclipsed the West. Both sides of the still all-too-real Mauer im Kopf are equally significant now, and it's simply a violation of WP:NPOV if we allow the article to give readers the impression that only (pre-1991) Mitte, Prenzlauer Berg, and Friedrichshain are "the real Berlin". The West Berlin nightclubs you deleted are -- excepting only the LaBelle -- just as significant as the East Berlin clubs you kept. Angr (t • c) 22:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Angr seconded. the contents of this article should absolutely represent important features regardless of location within the borders and likely also the sourced conceptual or fictional reality of Berlin. I further wonder at your reasoning for the removal of the Berlin City Palace -- I would assume it should remain. The english article Roaring_Twenties links de:Goldene_Zwanziger and, as such should be linked and written as Roaring Twenties. ∴ here…♠ 10:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Historical sites

I haven´t amended this section yet... but due to the recent friction over deletions etc., I want to put a few points forward: In this section, it is mentioned that

1 The Brandenburg Gate and Unter den Linden are symbols of Berlin, Prussia, and now Germany... I really can´t accept that Unter den Linden is a symbol of Prussia or of Germany.

2 Gendarmenmarkt, a renaissance square in Berlin, is surrounded by.... In my opinion it is certainly not a renaissance square

3 Lastly, the ranking seems once more to be a bit biased... I would say preference should go to Schloss Bellevue, where Germanys No.1 person resided, or these days works. I don´t think the last but one place on the list, before Schloss Charlottenburg is suitable.

I´d like your opinions on whether these points should be changed.. IsarSteve 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

1. without Germany, Prussia certainly 2. neoclassical 3. see Politics ....all the best

1. Unter den Linden is the central axis of the Friedrichstadt which was mostly built under Frederick the Great. So it's connected to Prussia anyway.

3. Schloss Bellevue isn't that important historically. There are many castles in and around Berlin with a similar significance, some of them larger and more representative. It has been chosen to be the (at the time, second) seat of the Bundespräsident mainly because of its location, and rather provisionally at first. I guess chance played a role. Anorak2 08:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, my problem is, I still can´t see Unter den Linden as a symbol of anything. It´s a nice place to be.. but a symbol? of what? of town planning perhaps??IsarSteve 10:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Second largest city?

Berlin is NOT the second biggest city in Europe as written in the article. Rome, Paris, London are definately bigger and many other cities as well...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danieldk (talk • contribs) 22:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits. Berlin is indeed the second largest city in the European Union after London, when the population of the city proper only is considered. Compare this with Largest urban areas of the European Union, where areas outside of the city proper are considered (and in some cases conurbations of several cities are grouped together). By that definition, Berlin is only the seventh largest urban area of the EU. Then there are the largest European metropolitan areas, which uses a different definition again; Berlin is only twelfth on that list. However, you're wrong to say that Rome is definitely larger than Berlin; on all three lists Berlin is larger than Rome. Angr (t • c) 23:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

But Rome is older :)

Please also note that Europe != EU. Anorak2 11:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

True enough. The list of largest European metropolitan areas includes cities outside the EU. Counting only cities in the EU on that list, Berlin is ninth, not twelfth. Angr (t • c) 11:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Famous Sights

I tried to update Berlin >Famous Sights today, but the edit was almost immediately reversed by some "unknown" person. At the moment Alexanderplatz reads as follows:-

• Alexanderplatz is featuring the Weltzeituhr and is a former East Berlin's shopping area. It was home to the Centrum-Warenhaus, which once was the GDR's department store.

It just makes you cringe to read it.. Whether as square can feature something, is open to debate, but the next sentence that the centrum store was the GDR´s (remember we also agreed to call it East Germany"), department store. So because this "Unknown person" keeps reversing edits..I ask somebody else to re-write Alexanderplatz. I thought maybe on the lines :- Alexanderplatz named after a Russian Tsar, is about 200years old.. etc., Dominated by the station and two 1920s Buildings desingned by Peter Behrens etc.,

So please re-write this part of famous sights.. I´m going to blank it again right now.. IsarSteve 16:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)